Comments on the debate between researchers who advocate laboratory-based and naturalistic study of memory, as to the relative merits and demerits of the two approaches, were presented. To evaluate the validity of Banaji and Crowder's (1989) claim that the naturalistic study of memory has been unscientific, unprofitable, and favoring the use of ecologically valid methods at the expence of generalization of results, four significant lines of everyday memory studies were reviewed and discussed: studies of autobiographical memory, studies of eyewitness testimony, studies of flashbulb memory, and studies of action slip. By evaluating the value of everyday memory research as compared with that of laboratory-based memory research, it was concluded that attempts to further progress in the study of human memory should try to integrate rather than alienate different approaches to human memory.